The great use and romance of the Japanese sword was in the duel, which is, I suspect, where most swords had their glory days. That would have to be one of the oldest battlefield techniques in human history. I love those stats from Karl, especially the idea of sticking arrows into someone and then running up and smacking them with a rock. Much later I think the Spanish had a group based on the sword but I can't think of much else.Īs Keith points out that doesn't mean that edged weapons are of no use in a battle, I seem to recall German soldiers from the first world war talking about sharpened shovels being quite handy in the trenches.
Which is to say that "traditional fighting" does not appear to have been heavily centered on close-quarters clashes of swords or even of spears, except in literary sources.Ĭan't think of too many sword-centred battle groups anywhere in history myself, the Roman army comes to mind, throw the bendy spear thingies and then close in to chop. In other words, long distance weapons (arrows and rocks) accounted for about 75% of the wounds received in the pre-gun era, and about 72 % (arrows + guns + rocks) during the gunpowder era. Between 15 (after the adoption of the gun) some 584 reported casualties break down as follows: there were 263 gunshot victims, 126 arrow victims, 99 spear victims, 40 sword victims, 30 injured by rocks, and 26 injured by combinations of the above (including one poor SOB who was shot by both guns and arrows and stabbed by spears, and one who was speared, naginata-ed, and cut with a sword). An analysis that I was just looking at this morning, of documents reporting battlewounds, for example, shows that between 15, out of some 620 casualties described, 368 were arrow wounds, 124 were spear wounds, 96 were injuries from rocks (thrown by slings or by hand), 18 were sword wounds, 7 were combined arrow and spear wounds, 3 were combined arrow and sword wounds, 2 were combined rock and spear wounds, and 2 were combined rock and arrow wounds. Although for many individuals on the ground it was their primary weapon and *verrrry* important to them for their personal well-being. I think it is probably best to say the sword wasn't the primary battlefield weapon in the larger scheme of things (in the sense of what "won" the battle"). And I really doubt many would want to go wading into a battlefield even after a strong assault without a sword in hand.
But the sword was still critical and used.
So yeah, the majority of deaths probably weren't sword related. But once the boots on the ground go in *from then on* the majority of engagements are going to involve their hand carried weapons. the majority of deaths "up front" aren't from arms fire. Just like today in the military where the first strikes are most likely air strikes, bombs, etc. So if you look at records/studies of injuries/deaths on the old battlefields of Japan you'll find that most injuries/deaths were due to things other that sword wounds. So did "firearms" depending on the period. But that doesn't mean that battles were comprised *solely* of guys with swords clashing in wave after Hollywood wave of action. Of course swords are "battlefield" weapons since many carried them.
0 kommentar(er)
